Mississippi bans trans student from graduation because she refused to wear "boy clothes" under gown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

100% this.

A trans girl should be able to wear a dress since all the other girls are wearing dresses. That being said, a cisgender BOY should be able to wear a dress and a cis GIRL should be able to wear pants. It's ridiculous that they are regulating expression in such a way. What I'm seeing here are conservatives saying they want girls in dresses and boys in pants based on genetics. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree that each person here went to the extreme. There is a policy. Kids got away with breaking policy for a time. One day they didn’t get to break policy and they sue.

Did they or their parents try to change the policy before the lawsuit?

She dressed as a girl and complied with the dress code for girls. The school officials did not object all year because no one was harmed. The judge’s ruling is based on the argument that the commencement ceremony is “voluntary”, so even the Trump judge acknowledged that it might be unconstitutional to require her to dress as a boy to attend school or a mandatory school event. Don’t both sides this, bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that each person here went to the extreme. There is a policy. Kids got away with breaking policy for a time. One day they didn’t get to break policy and they sue.

Did they or their parents try to change the policy before the lawsuit?

She dressed as a girl and complied with the dress code for girls. The school officials did not object all year because no one was harmed. The judge’s ruling is based on the argument that the commencement ceremony is “voluntary”, so even the Trump judge acknowledged that it might be unconstitutional to require her to dress as a boy to attend school or a mandatory school event. Don’t both sides this, bigots.

NP. This person isn’t a girl though. No one believes it no matter how nasty you get with the name calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that each person here went to the extreme. There is a policy. Kids got away with breaking policy for a time. One day they didn’t get to break policy and they sue.

Did they or their parents try to change the policy before the lawsuit?

She dressed as a girl and complied with the dress code for girls. The school officials did not object all year because no one was harmed. The judge’s ruling is based on the argument that the commencement ceremony is “voluntary”, so even the Trump judge acknowledged that it might be unconstitutional to require her to dress as a boy to attend school or a mandatory school event. Don’t both sides this, bigots.

NP. This person isn’t a girl though. No one believes it no matter how nasty you get with the name calling.

I believe it. She should be allowed to wear a dress. But again, it's irrelevant if she's a girl. The boys should have the ability to wear a dress and the girls pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that each person here went to the extreme. There is a policy. Kids got away with breaking policy for a time. One day they didn’t get to break policy and they sue.

Did they or their parents try to change the policy before the lawsuit?

She dressed as a girl and complied with the dress code for girls. The school officials did not object all year because no one was harmed. The judge’s ruling is based on the argument that the commencement ceremony is “voluntary”, so even the Trump judge acknowledged that it might be unconstitutional to require her to dress as a boy to attend school or a mandatory school event. Don’t both sides this, bigots.

NP. This person isn’t a girl though. No one believes it no matter how nasty you get with the name calling.

I believe it. She should be allowed to wear a dress. But again, it's irrelevant if she's a girl. The boys should have the ability to wear a dress and the girls pants.

When you establish your own school, feel free to make those rules. There’s no reason school authorities have to defer to you or the deranged activists who compare being denied a dress to transatlantic slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

These petty quibbles are the domain of entitled brats. I don’t give a single fig about these non-problems. Follow the rules or stay your behind at home. The rest of us have real issues to concern ourselves with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

These petty quibbles are the domain of entitled brats. I don’t give a single fig about these non-problems. Follow the rules or stay your behind at home. The rest of us have real issues to concern ourselves with.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wrote the lol's because I was literally laughing out loud so hard as I read that! Thanks for that!

You care SO little that you keep posting in a thread about it. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS THING I WON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

These petty quibbles are the domain of entitled brats. I don’t give a single fig about these non-problems. Follow the rules or stay your behind at home. The rest of us have real issues to concern ourselves with.

The school didn’t have a rule. They let her dress as a girl all through school. The superintendent made up a new requirement just for the graduation ceremony. The judge had to base the ruling on the ceremony being voluntary because even a Federalist Society Mississippi judge knows they couldn’t enforce it as a mandatory rule to attend school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that each person here went to the extreme. There is a policy. Kids got away with breaking policy for a time. One day they didn’t get to break policy and they sue.

Did they or their parents try to change the policy before the lawsuit?

She dressed as a girl and complied with the dress code for girls. The school officials did not object all year because no one was harmed. The judge’s ruling is based on the argument that the commencement ceremony is “voluntary”, so even the Trump judge acknowledged that it might be unconstitutional to require her to dress as a boy to attend school or a mandatory school event. Don’t both sides this, bigots.

NP. This person isn’t a girl though. No one believes it no matter how nasty you get with the name calling.

I believe it. She should be allowed to wear a dress. But again, it's irrelevant if she's a girl. The boys should have the ability to wear a dress and the girls pants.

When you establish your own school, feel free to make those rules. There’s no reason school authorities have to defer to you or the deranged activists who compare being denied a dress to transatlantic slavery.

It’s a public school. They can’t make arbitrary rules based on the superintendent’s bigotry. They have to have a legitimate reason for a requirement to participate in a school event. The superintendent’s desire to shun kids for stupid reasons is not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume everyone on this thread is against dress codes in HS. I am personally but if you believe schools should have a dress code then I don’t see how you can argue that this kid can wear whatever they want to graduation.

I’m against gendered dress codes since study after study has found they’re only used to police girls/women. A dress code can be easily written in a neutral way and when schools don’t do so, we have the national embarrassments we have here of a school policing what is worn under a fully encompassing garment.

It's always been about policing women and trying to force them to conform to some warped Stepford Wife ideal. https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/07/07/op-ed-im-lesbian-targeted-bathroom-police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

These petty quibbles are the domain of entitled brats. I don’t give a single fig about these non-problems. Follow the rules or stay your behind at home. The rest of us have real issues to concern ourselves with.

Meh. People like you said the same things about same-sex marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

These petty quibbles are the domain of entitled brats. I don’t give a single fig about these non-problems. Follow the rules or stay your behind at home. The rest of us have real issues to concern ourselves with.

Meh. People like you said the same things about same-sex marriage.

You reveal your own stupidity when you compare the ability to marry, have the person you love be your next of kin, and enjoy all the legal and tax benefits to . . . some brat getting to wear a dress for an hour? Get some perspective!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing of forcing boys and girls into gendered outfits, especially forcing girls into dresses, is just creepy.

Gendered outfits have existed throughout every culture and era in history. About 5 minutes ago, we decided gender was a feeling rather than a biological fact, and now we are going to pretend gender signifiers are creepy. OK.

Gendered dress codes are creepy.

They have been the norm since recorded history. And if this is your stance, it nullifies the trans girls entire argument. She would have no reason to prefer the male or female version of the uniform, rather, she should be arguing that no students should get to wear pants. She is making the opposite argument, that dresses are integral to her identity as a female.

Um, if you reject gendered dress codes that means you believe people should wear what they most feel comfortable and appropriate in, regardless of gender. Your argument makes no sense. Any of the girls should have been able to wear pants if they so chose. And any of the boys should be able to wear a dress or robes if they so choose. Lots of cultures where men where dresses. Even male priests wear dresses in church in our culture.

Break out of your rigid thinking and support freedom.

NP. You need real problems. How clownish to think some spoiled boy not getting to wear a dress for an hour should be the civil rights issue of the day.

You know, it's the same people that claim that trans people should just express themselves as feminine men or masculine women that then turn around and say, no boys are pants only. Then they claim that the trans person is reinforcing stereotypes while literally doing it themselves. By saying, she's a boy and boys wear pants, YOU are reinforcing stereotypes. Okay, she's a boy. Boys can wear what they choose. Unless you want everyone to conform to gendered stereotypes of clothing.

These petty quibbles are the domain of entitled brats. I don’t give a single fig about these non-problems. Follow the rules or stay your behind at home. The rest of us have real issues to concern ourselves with.

Meh. People like you said the same things about same-sex marriage.

You reveal your own stupidity when you compare the ability to marry, have the person you love be your next of kin, and enjoy all the legal and tax benefits to . . . some brat getting to wear a dress for an hour? Get some perspective!

The spoiled brats here are the superintendent of education and the federal judge. What snowflakes they are!